2006-12-08 14:26:46 · 6 answers · asked by heath8074 1 in Environment
such as heating your home with natural gas compared with a pellet stove or wood burning stove
2006-12-12 02:46:07 · update #1
It would depend on the ecological dependancies to that resource. Just because it burns cleaner does not mean that it may not have extreme ecological impact by removing it from the environment.
2006-12-08 14:29:20 · answer #1 · answered by DimensionalStryder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question. The answer relies on another question: what impact does the depletion of the non-renewable resource have on the environment? If there are no negative impacts on the environment, by all means use the resource, deplete it all you want. If there are negative effects then you need to weigh the consequences. Environment aside, another factor is the cost to implement the resource to perform a task as opposed to another resource that can do something similar. Laws of economics state that the cheaper resource will be the most popular where there is competition.
2006-12-13 08:14:59 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. If there was a really clean but non-renewal resource, it would behoove us to use that up first before resorting to trashing our planet with the renewable source, don't you think? I mean, if the source is really clean, why not use it? The only reason I could think for not using it would be if it was all gone. Having it there and choosing not to use it would be silly.
2006-12-08 15:33:18 · answer #3 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
where the heck are you going to get a dirtier renewable energy source, vs a cleaner non-renewable?
please give an example.
2006-12-08 16:20:42 · answer #4 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gas burns pretty clean . Maybe the fact sht on your stove isnt right
2006-12-13 09:27:05 · answer #5 · answered by Fool 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what else is this non-renewable substance used for?
2006-12-08 14:30:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋